Krishan Lal vs State of Haryana

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

The petitioner has moved this Criminal Revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated January 25, 1995 wherein finding that wrong procedure has been adopted by the trial Court while convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 16(1)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding it in a summary manner in accordance with law.

The petitioner''s contention is that in this case milk sample was taken from the petitioner on October 15, 1983. The complaint was filed in the trial Court on November 25, 1983, and since 1984 the petitioner was continuously facing the trial. After 11 years now the case is remanded to the trial Court for a de novo trial. Relying on S.G. Nain v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 603; Baldev Krishan v. The State of Punjab, 1987(2) RecentC.R. 463 ; Attam Parkash v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) RecentCR 558 and Machhander v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792 Mr. Gill has contended that this order of de novo trial is wholly unjustified and, therefore, the order should be quashed.

So far as the above authorities are concerned, in S.G. Nain''s case, the case registered under Section, 409 IPC was pending against the accused for 14 years. It was held that apart from mental agony to the accused, even the fair trial has become impossible. Hence, irrespective of the question whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required to be obtained or not, the prosecution was quashed. In Machander''s case, after 41/2 years the apex Curt refused to remand the case to the trial Court simply on the ground that an important piece of evidence was not put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. (Old). In Attam Parkash''s and Baldev Krishan''s cases, the accused was indicted for an identical offence. In Attam Parkash''s case, wrong procedure was adopted and hence fresh trial was ordered. The High Court quashed the proceedings. It is also observed that there was only small deficiency in milk solids. Baldev Krishan''s case was also ordered to be remanded to the trial Magistrate for reexamination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as in that case also an important piece of evidence was not put to the accused when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that the accused was facing the trial for the last four years, hence the order of remand was held unsustainable and it was set aside.

In this case, from the trial Court''s record, it is evident that sample of cow milk was taken from the petitioner on October 15, 1983. On analysis it was found adulterated. The deficiency was 17.5 per cent in milk fat and 2 per cent in milk solids not fat. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Girdharilal Sapuru and others, AIR 1981 S.C. 1169 the Apex Court has repelled such a plea of lapse of time and has observed :

"...Times without number it has been pointed out by this Court that those who indulge into such a pernicious activity of manufacturing and/or selling adulterated articles, of food posing a threat to the health and wellbeing of large number of people should be properly dealt with according to law and in such cases such narrow technicalities should not be allowed to outweigh the cause of justice".

In view of this observation of the Apex Court, I find no substance in this Criminal Revision. No doubt the petitioner is facing the trial since 1984, but that aspect can be taken care of. Hence, this revision is hereby dismissed being meritless, but, at the same time, direction is given to the trial Court to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.